Recent Articleshttps://prospect.org/authors/127815/rss.xml
The American Prospect - articles by authorenRick Perry's Higher Education Woeshttps://prospect.org/article/rick-perrys-higher-education-woes
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Texas Governor Rick Perry’s has had a tough go with higher education. Costs to attend the state's college have shot past the support the state provides to students. State community colleges, for example, are 90 percent more expensive since 2000 while, over the same period, government spending increased only 23 percent. The disparity is even more pronounced for the major flagship universities. On top of that, in the most recent budget, no appropriations were made for enrollment increases, and state financial aid was cut 15 percent. So what is Governor Perry’s tonic for this sour mixture? Forcing local governments to choose to raise taxes and making Texas’s nationally-renowned research universities more like for-profit colleges.</p>
<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/for-profit-costs-sm.jpg"><img alt="for-profit-costs-sm.jpg" src="http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/for-profit-costs-sm-thumb-400x290.jpg" width="400" height="290" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a></span><br />
Governor Perry’s big idea to fix the cost problem in higher education is to try to make a college degree cost $10,000 by implementing what he calls the “Seven Breakthrough Solutions.” Right now, a Texas public school can cost as much as $70,000. So, no surprise, change doesn’t come easy. According to the <em>Chronicle of Higher Education</em>, the plan “would separate teaching and research budgets, give professors pay raises based on student evaluations, and treat students as customers.” In other words, the state’s universities would be turned on their heads and become less like traditional research universities, where faculty are given license to pursue their own research interests free of student pressure, and more like for-profit colleges, where the bottom-line is prioritized over quality. The chart above, pulled from The Texas Public Policy foundation, the organization who drafted Perry’s proposal, makes clear that for-profits are a direct model for the improvements.</p>
<p>Backlash has been strong, not least because the plan runs against more than a hundred years of university history. Gary C. Kelly, the president of Southwest Airlines and a graduate of and adviser to the University of Texas at Austin, wrote to Mr. Perry that the reforms "potentially could paralyze an organization and render it uncompetitive.” The Association of American Universities called some of the proposals “ill-conceived.” Twenty-two distinguished Texas A&amp;M alumni also launched a counter-campaign. The pressure was enough that the A&amp;M university system’s chancellor at the time, Michael D. McKinney, who embraced the reform proposal and who previously served as Perry’s chief of staff, resigned in May. The whole ordeal has been an enormous hassle. Rick O'Donnell, a fellow for The Texas Public Policy foundation, was fired after six weeks of employment for the University of Texas’s Board of Regents after pushing too hard for reforms. As a result, he threatened to sue, resulting in a $70,000 settlement case.</p>
<p>But all that said, this isn’t the first time Perry’s proposed solutions that perked up some ears. In 2007, he proposed top-down, No Child Left Behind-style subject-area tests for college graduates that would tie student score outcomes to institutional funding. Needless to say, that one didn’t get off the ground -- although it did send the message he was willing to throw caution into the wind to make cuts.</p>
<p>Perry thinks he can get away with the plan by forcing local districts to take the blame. Between 2000 and 2005, local community college districts, which set their own tuition and fees, had to levy a 7 percent increase on property taxes to pay for costs. Those taxes, Governor Perry says, are the locality’s choice, not his. As one protester told the <em>Houston Chronicle</em>, “That’s like him saying ‘I put the bullet in the Ruger and I shot the coyote, but it was the bullet that killed the coyote, not me.’”</p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:45:57 +0000206963 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaFor Whom the Pell Tollshttps://prospect.org/article/whom-pell-tolls
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>The Hill</em> <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/174253-house-conservatives-angry-over-pell-grant-funding-in-boehner-debt-bill#.TjK8cvdhPcU.twitter">reports</a> that Pell Grants have become a sticking point between the freshman GOP and John Boehner for the passage of his debt-ceiling compromise plan. Representative Denny Rehberg described the right's grievances with the program on a talk show in April: "So you can go to college on Pell Grants — maybe I should not be telling anybody this because it’s turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century.” But if the GOP actually thinks Pell’s size is harming the economy, it’s certainly not making a strong argument.</p>
<p>Pell is, it’s true, much larger today than it was even a few years ago. It’s grown roughly 150 percent since 2006-2007. A number of nonpartisan institutes are concerned it may be too large and are analyzing its size. But <a href="http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/the_real_cause_of_pell_grant_cost_increases-46147">according to New America</a>, only 25 percent of that growth is attributable to the increase in the maximum size of the grant eligible students can receive. Instead, the increase is caused by changes to eligibility requirements and by the fact that more aspiring students are poor and fall under the $30,000 income bracket. If either party wants to make cuts to the program, reducing the maximum award -- as the GOP has called for -- is not a very savvy place to start. To cut the program's size, they would have to reduce the number of students who qualify for Pell.</p>
<p>Instead, the GOP's free-market ideology approach is expanding Pell in the short- and long-term. By calling for austerity now and sidelining economy-boosting projects, "We are committing an unforced economic error," according to David Leonhardt of <i>The New York Times</i>. By failing to invest in education now, more families will struggle financially in the future. Per Leonhardt: “The larger principle is that budget cuts that reduce the number of college graduates only add to the budget deficit -- by reducing economic growth -- in the long run.” It’s a cost-benefit carnival. The fewer students who go to college, the less money they have. The GOP approach to these programs is to cut back on government. At the moment, that's an effective policy to expand Pell.</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:37:13 +0000206909 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaThe Future of Low-income Studentshttps://prospect.org/article/future-low-income-students
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yesterday, a number of groups, including <a href="http://campusprogress.org/archives/by_tag/pell_grant">Campus Progress</a> and <a href="http://www.edtrust.org/dc/press-room/news/help-us-make-noise-on-july-25-save-pell-day">The Education Trust</a>, came together for <a href="http://www.savepell.org/">"Save Pell Day."</a> The reason? Pell’s in trouble. The budget passed by the House earlier this year reduced the maximum grant by 45 percent, kicking about 1.5 million students out of the program. Representative Paul Ryan’s proposal for next year reduces the grant a comparable amount. And in the debt-reduction talks, Pell has repeatedly come up as an area prime for cuts.</p>
<p>For those who are unfamiliar with the Pell grant program, it is money paid directly to low-income, qualifying students who can then put it toward tuition and college expenses. Unlike student loans, it does not have to be paid back. Pell's size has increased roughly 150 percent from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 -- from $14.4 to $34.4 billion. The program is about 30 years old and is one of the signature pieces of federal loan legislation -- you could call it the "social security" or "medicare" of college access.</p>
<p>So, no surprise, Republicans are trying to cut it. In hearings earlier this year, House Republicans complained that the size of the grant is driving the cost of college up. No matter that only one reputable study has investigated the question, and the results found virtually no correlation between the grant and tuition costs. In fact, the Pell grant covers roughly one-third the annual cost of a four-year public college -- a few decades ago, it covered three-fourths the cost. Pell is lagging behind the trend of increased college tuition, not leading it.</p>
<p>On the other side of the aisle, President Obama has proudly claimed to have strengthened Pell with legislation in the stimulus that increased its size. Technically that may be true, but he’s patting himself on the back a bit too firmly. In total, the Pell program is smaller now than it was a year ago because of changes to how many Pell grants students can receive per year.</p>
<p>Like most right-wing political action in recent memory, the Republican push to cut Pell grants is informed less by a judgment of whether it is effective policy than it is by ideology: the frenzy to eliminate government for the sake of it. Meanwhile, the GOP has stood staunch alongside the for-profit college industry, which you couldn’t avoid finding evidence of committing wrongdoings if you tried. </p>
<p>Looking for spending cuts is a worthwhile task. But a program that makes small investments in low-income students who in turn will use their educations to earn higher wages and pay more taxes doesn't seem quite right as the first place to start slashing.</p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:05:48 +0000206892 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaNone of the Abovehttps://prospect.org/article/none-above
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It's hard to tell whether Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a former basketball star, is faking a pass. But if Congress doesn't reauthorize No Child Left Behind (NCLB) -- the Bush-era education-reform law that used standardized tests to hold schools accountable for performance -- by the time kids go back to school this fall, Duncan is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/education/12educ.html">threatening</a> to ignore it. The education secretary said he would use the authority NCLB grants him to issue regulation waivers to school districts in exchange for reforms consistent with the Obama administration's goals. </p>
<p>There may be a political calculus to Duncan's new push: the looming election. More than two years into the president's term and a year after releasing a blueprint for reforming the law, the administration's education agenda has taken a back seat to the spending wars that now consume Washington. Next month, the National Education Association (NEA), the country's largest teachers union, which has called for an overhaul, will decide at its convention whether to endorse Barack Obama in 2012. But Duncan's frustration stems from justified impatience. Rather than reauthorize the law, which would require a legislative overhaul and bipartisan cooperation, Congress has pushed off the problem by passing one-year extensions since 2007. </p>
<p>Critics have long assailed the law for its rigid benchmarks and focus on standardized testing, which some say have turned teachers into test-trainers and narrowed curriculum (a common derogative is "No Child Left Untested"). Many education policy-makers also say the federal government has failed to provide sufficient funds for implementing it while financially penalizing schools who fall short of its standards, leaving needy schools even more cash-strapped. But rather than reauthorize the law, which would require a legislative overhaul and bipartisan cooperation, Congress has pushed off the problem by passing one-year extensions since 2007. </p>
<p>In the blueprint for reform the Obama administration <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html">released</a> last spring, the president called for, among other things, broader curriculum, further support for charter schools, and an overhaul of how student success is measured. In keeping with the approach the administration has taken with its signature education-policy initiative, "<a href="http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html">Race to the Top</a>," the blueprint also called for teacher performance incentives and competitive grants for schools to spur innovation. </p>
<p>But part of the difficulty in reauthorizing the law stems from general disagreement over how to approach education reform. </p>
<p>Republicans oppose the administration's intervention in education on ideological grounds. Yet Republicans have not taken the lead to an improved bill. Their version of reform was to cut nearly half the programs associated with the law. When Obama implored Congress to try to fix the law by this fall, Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, chairman of the House education committee, called that deadline "arbitrary." </p>
<p>On the other hand, the Democrats have been unable to forge a consensus about some of the most hot-button education-reform issues: teacher accountability, charter schools, and the question of whether to have a single national test or to allow states to set their own standards. As Dana Goldstein explained for the <i>Prospect</i> in "<a href="http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_education_wars">The Education Wars</a>," the Democratic Party is split between reformers and the major teacher's unions. The Obama administration, in characteristic form, is trying to walk the tightrope between the two. </p>
<p>Last week, unions shot back at Duncan's over the announcement that he would just issue waivers and implement the administrations own plans. The NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (the second-largest teachers' union) came down hard, with the NEA saying that the reforms attached to the waivers would create "more unmanageable hurdles for schools and students." The AFT expressed unhappiness with what it considers a half-measure, saying that only Congressional authorization can accomplish real reform. The American Association of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association also rejected the reforms attached to the waivers. </p>
<p>Duncan is currently meeting with governors, school boards and teachers to try to come up with a reform game plan in the event that he has to exercise his "Plan B." But at the moment, he's a mole before a mountain. Some conservatives are already painting his workaround as unconstitutional. Rick Hess, an AEI director and a blogger at <i>Education Week</i>, wrote: "However convinced Duncan is of his rightness, there are many who may disagree." Senator Harkin, who serves as head of the Senate's education committee, has made his views plain: "Given the bipartisan commitment in Congress to fixing No Child Left Behind, it seems premature at this point to take steps outside the legislative process." </p>
<p>But as Duncan knows, Washington is half a decade into being committed to reform. Faced with Congressional inaction, the administration seems all out of options.</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:48:10 +0000207515 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaDid We Create a Monster?https://prospect.org/article/did-we-create-monster
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Does the federal government need to regulate enrollment in Women's Studies programs based on how their graduates fare in the job market? What about Chinese Literature? Religious Studies? Last week's announcement of new rules to bear down on career colleges like the University of Phoenix, which offer degrees in programs like Health Administration and Criminal Justice Administration, weren't designed to force those questions. These programs come under a different section in the Higher Education Act, excluding them from regulations for how much money their graduates make. But the new rules -- the gainful employment rules, as they're called -- could push federal regulators to start peering under the hood of more traditional colleges majors, [according to reporting by](<a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/13/explaining_the_true_significance_of_gainful_employment_rules">http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/13/explaining_the_true_signif...</a>) *Inside Higher Ed*.</p>
<p>The issue is that the new regulations create the regulatory structure and a political vacuum ripe for more regulations. The rules, which penalize career colleges whose students cannot repay their loans, inaugurate what Kevin Carey, policy director for the Think Tank Education Sector, calls in the article a "new era of widely available data about how much college graduates earn and what kind of jobs they take." He goes on to describe how, now that the beast is built, it will be easier for government to expand into other areas of education regulation. Once government policymakers can wield this data, it is only a matter of time before calls to clamp down on and curb federal spending throughout higher ed are heard.</p>
<p>Liberals may have heralded regulations of vocational programs, but it's hard to see how this one will play out in a way they'll like. It's not outside the realm of possibility that this could become the impetus for calling for "cutting wasteful spending" on student enrollment in liberals studies programs which might not have the best job placement rates but whose graduates receive comparable aid to graduates of any other major at the school. And with the value of a college degree already in question there's certainly room for that attack line. In many ways the case has already been made. During the for-profit college debate, many [Conservatives](<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/260425/matthew-yglesias-underlying-problem-tax-financed-services-reihan-salam">http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/260425/matthew-yglesias-underlying-...</a>) already called for as much. And the GOP has already called for slashing Pell Grants. According to AEI Fellow Andrew P. Kelly in a* Chronicle of Higher Education* article published on the same topic today, the new gainful employment rule "could prove to be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent flap that accountability proponents have been looking for."</p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:00:26 +0000206699 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaPass Without Distinctionhttps://prospect.org/article/pass-without-distinction
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In Clinton, Iowa, a 500-capacity football stadium sits on the campus of Ashford University, which sells heavy football sweatshirts emblazoned with the school's logo in its campus store. But don't expect to see cheering fans filling up the bleachers anytime soon. Ninety-nine percent of the college's 78,000 students are online, and there is no Ashford football team. The stadium and gear are just marketing swag, used to make the online university look like a traditional school.</p>
<p>On the numbers, though, Ashford is anything but traditional. It has an 84 percent dropout rate for its two-year associate degree program. Eighty-six percent of its students receive federally backed student loans, but just three years out, 22 percent find themselves in default on them. And Ashford's payback rate is significantly better than the average for-profit college.</p>
<p>After a nearly two-year drafting and revision process, the Department of Education (DOE) has finally begun to crack down on schools like Ashford, whose students are often lured in by flashy advertising and the promise of a lucrative future, then left with little but mounting debt to show for their education. Yesterday, the DOE announced rules requiring career colleges to certify that their graduates are "gainfully employed" in order for their students to qualify for federal aid. What's more, schools will now have to make information about average debt and future earnings widely available in marketing materials.</p>
<p>The rules, which apply to career and vocational programs at for-profit and non-profit colleges, are intended as a quality-control measure for the growing for-profit industry that draws billions from the federal government each year, yet has little accountability. While only about 12 percent of college students attend for-profit institutions, they receive 26 percent of Title IV funds -- which include Pell grants and Stafford loans as well as other financial aid -- and account for a staggering 47 percent of student-loan defaults. In the last decade, for-profit schemes have exploded -- and largely on the government's dime: Between 2000 and 2009, the amount of federal aid going to the for-profits quintupled, to $26.5 billion. </p>
<p>But starting in 2012, schools will have to pass one of three quality-control measures to qualify for federal aid. Career colleges can either show that in a given year, at least 35 percent of their students are repaying some amount (even so much as a dollar) off their loans. Alternatively, they can satisfy federal requirements by showing their graduates' debt-to-income ratio falls below a threshold or that their debt-to-discretionary-income -- their total debt relative to their income spent on non-essentials -- levels fall below a different threshold. If a college fails to meet at least one of the three metrics three times in four years, it will lose eligibility. Practically, this means that no college will be affected until 2015.</p>
<p>Yesterday's ruling is being pitched by DOE officials as a considered, reform-minded effort -- a chance for for-profit colleges to turn things around. But to more hardline reformers, the rules leave a lot to be desired. While the new rules do go after the most egregious offenders in the for-profit industry, they leave the merely bad untouched. </p>
<p>"This rule may stop the worst violators among the predatory for-profit schools but it will not protect thousands of young students who are being burdened with debt by many worthless diploma mills," said Sen. Dick Durbin in a statement yesterday.</p>
<p>First, the requirements don't come into effect until next year. Colleges are given "three strikes" -- one per year -- and they only have to satisfy the requirements three years out of four. There's a large window -- the duration of two two-year degree programs --before a career college could take a hit. "In the end, the 436-page document is little more than an a la carte menu of ways these institutions can game the system," says Jose Cruz, vice-president of Education Trust. </p>
<p>The standards have also been considerably weakened in the last year's review process. Of the three ways a college could demonstrate its graduates were gainfully employed -- the loan repayment rate, the debt-to-income ratio, and the debt-to-discretionary-income ratio -- all three have been reduced to levels previously considered appropriate for issuing a warning. Colleges will not have to change all much to meet these standards. In fact, the Department of Education expects that 98 percent of career programs already meet them. </p>
<p>The rule formulation also has the potential for abuse, too. The requirements are stepped year-to-year in a way that penalties can be easily avoided. If 85 percent of a college's students cannot repay their loans one year, but then 30 percent of them repay them the next, the college will still qualify for funds. Some critics also fear that for-profits will act in collusion with financial planners to place their students in forbearance rather than let them default in order to shift their default to another year, sidestepping the regulations. </p>
<p>At least the rules do try to empower students with information. Last fall, the Department of Education announced that colleges will have to disclose on their websites consumer information about their past graduates, including debt-load, tuition costs, job placement rates and graduation rates. Programs that fall short of federal requirements on any of these will also have to display its failing grade until it improves. And, if the program fails two years in a row, the college needs to warn its current students about their debt and present them with options for transferring.</p>
<p>After nearly two years since the Department of Education started its look into for-profit education, today's rules issue a modest rebuke, moving the goalposts towards effective reform that stops abuse. But if it's any indication of how hard the for-profit education sector is taking it, yesterday the stock of Bridgepoint Education, fake-football-field Ashford's parent company, shot up 3.3 percent. </p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:16:22 +0000149402 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaHaiti's Post-Election Unresthttps://prospect.org/article/haitis-post-election-unrest
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><i>Rioting, violence, and mistrust caused by widespread suspicions of fraud have consumed Haiti in the nearly two weeks since last Sunday's presidential election. The election, meant to replace the current president, René Préval, was held even with a cholera epidemic and many residents still living in tents after January's massive earthquake. Haiti <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&amp;year=2010&amp;base_name=holding_haiti_accountable"> was let down</a> by international organizations and the United States government, both of which insisted on pushing for the scheduled vote despite failing to provide promised technical support and oversight to ensure the election's legitimacy. </i></p>
<p><i>The </i>Prospect<i> spoke with Robert Fatton, a professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia, about what this might mean for the country's continued recovery, the role of aid organizations, and what options remain for political resolution.</i> </p>
<p> <b>With the cholera, rioting, and political uncertainty, how dire is Haiti's current situation, and what is the best hope for trying to stabilize the country quickly?</b> </p>
<p>It's not clear what is going to happen, because Haiti has all kinds of protests, and some of them were quite violent. The headquarters of the party of President Préval and of the candidate [Jude] Celestin was burned down. A significant sector of the population does not accept the results as published by the electoral council, and there is the feeling that the vote was fraudulent and therefore, that the presence of Celestin in the second round is the result of fraud. </p>
<p>There was talk -- but that would violate the constitution actually -- of having the three candidates participate in the second round: [former First Lady Mirlande] Manigat, Celestin, and Sweet Mickey -- Michel Martelly -- who is a well-known Kompa singer. If you have the three, that might resolve the problem, but the difficulty obviously is that historically, any election in Haiti has been the source of serious problems. Those who lose the election claim that there's been fraud, and those who win the election claim there's been no fraud, and we can see that in that particular historical pattern in this election. On Sunday, literally all the candidates except Celestin said there was fraud and that they would not accept the elections, and yet 24 hours afterwards, both Manigat and Martelly reversed completely their earlier judgment and said the elections were fine, because they started believing they might in fact win the vote. </p>
<p>There needs to be a pact between the different candidates, and that will probably entail changing the electoral council, because the electoral council has been perceived by the vast majority of candidates as being on the side of the president and therefore on the side of Celestin. </p>
<p><b> What has the U.S.' involvement in Haiti been during this election?</b> </p>
<p>On the one hand, clearly pushing for these elections, giving significant amount of money so the elections could take place. But at the same time, having a kind of ambiguous position as to the results because [it] claims that the results might be fraudulent. But on the other hand, they didn't go as far as to say that the elections should be annulled. </p>
<p>I think to some extent, this creates even more instability, because people don't really know exactly where the U.S. stands. </p>
<p><b>Is there an international consensus on the election results being unacceptable? What should international organizations like the United Nations and Organization of American States do now?</b> </p>
<p>Well, I think they're really in a bind. As I just said, they say the elections were bad, but they were good enough. They have the violence now. And then you have the difference [in votes] between Celestin and between Martelly -- it really was insignificant. I think the international community miscalculated completely by accepting those elections. Either they were good enough and you accept them, or there was fraud and they should not be accepted. I think the idea that elections can be very bad but they are still valid is such a contradiction. </p>
<p>My preference from the very beginning -- and is something that was ultimately rejected by the powers that be -- was that immediately after the earthquake, there should have been some sort of national conference where all of the political parties or all of the grassroots organizations would have come to the table and would have essentially decided after a long period of discussions that there should have been a government -- an interim government of national unity -- and that once the trauma of the earthquake and now cholera was over, at that point there could have been elections. Because what has happened is the international community, which put a lot of its prestige and a lot of its money on those elections, has a very ugly face now. </p>
<p> <b>What implications does this election have for international aid money?</b> </p>
<p>Well, that's a big issue, because if there's no stability whatsoever, then it's unlikely you're going to get a lot of foreign assistance. If you have no stability, it's unlikely you're going to get any kind of foreign investments. And the head of the U.N. in Haiti and MINUSTAH, said if the elections were not good, they would cut foreign assistance. I doubt this is going to happen because the country is facing so many difficulties in terms of the cholera, et cetera. But this does mean that if you don't have political stability, then Haiti is going to remain utterly dependent on charity from the international community, and the investments that could have come to change the nature of the economy are certainly not going to materialize. </p>
<p><b> If the situation continues, how bad could it get? What are we likely to see next?</b> </p>
<p>This is a tough one, because if you look at Haiti over the last 10 years or so, one would assume that we had reached bottom. The tragedy is that when you think that we've reached bottom, we suddenly find out that the bottom was not in fact the bottom, that there was something further down. That's the real tragedy. </p>
<p>The only thing one would maybe hope is that things are so potentially catastrophic -- I don't even know what term to use -- that that might bring some sort of shock to the system, as it were, and that people will start to act differently. It gets pretty bad -- even if you have a second round [of votes] and more violence (I don't think people are going to care about the second round, frankly, precisely because of the nature of the first round) so you have a parliament or a presidency, whoever, is going to lack legitimacy. It may be that the president will manage to create a government of national unity, [but] something else has to happen. And it's unclear this is going to happen. </p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:35:57 +0000149062 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaSome Citizens United Numbers.https://prospect.org/article/some-citizens-united-numbers
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As <i>TAP</i> has documented, this election season has seen more than its share of organizations buying expensive airtime to run ads in favor of candidates and issues. Here's a breakdown of spending by 501(c)s -- organizations with Orwellian names like “Americans for Prosperity” that can take unlimited contributions from anonymous, private donors -- in key races the last two weeks before the election:
</p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="400"><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top">
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
<i>Race</i>
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
<i>Democratic</i>
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
<i>Republican</i>
</td>
</tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top">
NV
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top" width="120">
Reid/Angle
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$481,852
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$2,141,803
</td>
</tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top">
WI
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
Feingold/Johnson
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$169,650
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$794,260
</td>
</tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top">
CO
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
Bennet/Buck
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$1,476,722
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$1,303,762
</td>
</tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top">
PA
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
Sestak/Toomey
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$1,699,268
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">
$514,344
</td>
</tr></tbody></table><p><i>*Source: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">Opensecrets.org</a></i></p>
<p>As you can see from the table above, in a last-ditch effort to save the campaigns of <b>Sestak</b> and <b>Bennet</b>, non-disclosing Democratic groups actually outspent their Republican counterparts. But in Nevada and Wisconsin, <b>Karl Rove's</b> Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thumped the Democrats in media spending.</p>
<p>The problem with "non-disclosing, outside groups" is they allow voters to be bombarded with messages without also saying who exactly is behind them. While <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/CampaignContributionLimitsOverview/tabid/16594/Default.aspx">most states limit</a> how much an individual can contribute to a campaign, anonymous donors can pump as much as they want into one of these organizations without revealing themselves. </p>
<p>Ushered in by Justice <b>Clarence Thomas</b>' decision to keep donor anonymity intact in the <em>Citizens United</em> ruling, this state of affairs is all-around regressive. It's bad for <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/10/21/citizens-united-waking-a-sleeping-giant/">shareholders</a>, an example of the classic <a href="%20http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/03/reasontv-3-reasons-not-to-swea#commentcontainer">libertarian</a> misunderstanding of "freedom." </p>
<p>As <b>Stanley Fish</b> has argued, without knowing who made a statement or expressed opinion, you can't completely understand what it's trying to convince you of. Donor anonymity robs voters of that context, ultimately preventing them from fully understanding the messages that slug them. One is also left to worry about foreign money creeping into these organizations and influencing elections. It's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098b.htm">happened before</a>, and whether you think the U.S. Chamber of Commerc<b>e</b> used foreign funds or not, the more important point is that there's no way to know. Especially in light of recent studies on the power of networks and crowds in decision-making (call it the <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/the-taste-of-coke-is-all-in-your-head/">Mexican Coke effect</a>), there's no defense that self-governance, autonomy, or individual liberty is lifted when you're left in the dark about what you've been led to think. Even <b>David Brooks</b> once <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12brooks.html">thought that way</a>.</p>
<p><i>-- Sam Petulla</i></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:30:05 +0000204891 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaThe Lowdown on Election Spendinghttps://prospect.org/article/lowdown-election-spending-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p> <i>This election season, outside interest groups, freed from the restraints of campaign-finance law by the </i>Citizens United<i> ruling, are spending unprecedented amounts of money to influence races around the country. New groups are organizing under 501(c) nonprofit status, which allows them to spend up to half their money on political activities and doesn't require them to disclose who their donors are. According to a recent estimate by the Associated Press, $264 million has already been spent on communications alone -- more than during the entire 2008 presidential election season and more than four times the amount spent during the 2006 midterms. </i></p>
<p> TAP <i>spoke with Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and its campaign-money-tracking database <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org">OpenSecrets.org</a>, about how, exactly, these 501( c) organizations work, what this means for democracy, why we shouldn't have forgotten Watergate, and why we don't want to wait to correct the problems caused by </i>Citizen's United. </p>
<p><b>How much is this interest-group money affecting the elections? When we look at Meg Whitman, who has an enormous amount of money and self-funded her campaign, she still trails in the polls. How is out-of-state interest-group spending -- in terms of its impact -- different from self-funding?</b></p>
<p>The interest-group money is primarily coming from a few deep-pocketed individuals who are bankrolling most [of] -- if not the entire -- effort, and in many cases, the entire operation has been funded by one or two people. Some organizations are far more grassroots or truly grassroots, and you can argue about whether unions, based on their political spending based on dues, [are] grassroots. Some of these newer organizations, they're being very cagey and secretive not only about their donors but about who runs the organizations themselves.</p>
<p><b>What about out-of-state donations influencing local elections? Is this having an effect, or is it just buzz-generating?</b></p>
<p>Most of these organizations have a national focus, so they're looking at all the seats most likely to get them to tip the scales to their party. And they are, I think, having an enormous effect in this cycle, in particular with the amount of money being dedicated to advertising and advocacy. Constituents can't escape the barrage and scarily forget how negative and flat out irresponsible these ads are. So I think it's pretty effective. That's why these organizations do it.</p>
<p><b>How big has the change really been as a result of Citizens United? Are there any historical parallels?</b></p>
<p>The soft-money ruling by the [Federal Election Commission] in the 1978 decision regarding the Kansas Republican Party ushered in a new age of soft-money fundraising. Ultimately, [there] came [a] similarly enormous flood of money, particularly in the '90s. I think we learned -- particularly for corporations but also for organizations and individuals -- that where the law allows it, where there's a way, there's a will. And that became the story of the '90s. Two-thirds of that soft money going to the national party was coming from corporations or unions -- it was coming from the organizations' treasuries themselves. Right now, we are returning to that scenario in some ways, but in a much more direct way -- allowing outside independent groups to advocate directly for or against candidates.</p>
<p><b>Is there any chance for the disclose act?</b></p>
<p>Certainly, it survives another day. I'm not personally holding my breath. OpenSecrets doesn't take a position. It is in some ways a shame that there wasn't a much narrower approach to get opponents of this legislation on record saying that they would not support disclosure of the donors to these independent expenditure groups. For me, that is not a partisan issue. It is a very clear right-to-know issue and a defense of democracy, but it's complicated. And it really becomes extraordinarily important given the importance of outside money, and the size of the outside spending in this election cycle, for Congress to deal with this before the 2012 race, because this, of course, is just a taste of what we're in for in 2012. This is when people are going to work out the kinks in their strategy.</p>
<p><b>How serious is the problem of foreign funds coming into this election?</b></p>
<p>I think it's enormously serious because we've seen it in the past. I'm not talking about the [U.S. Chamber of Commerce]. In this case, I'm talking about the '90s. It was primarily associated with the Democrats, but it was also a bipartisan problem where we had checks coming from Hong Kong, Korea, of course the Hsai Lai Temple [ a California temple accused of funnelling foreign money to Democrats] -- there was a lot of money that was potentially coming from foreign corporations and even governments. In that case, at least there was a paper trail, a record and a path, for [Federal Communications Commission] and [Justice Department] investigators to follow. In this case we have no way of knowing. </p>
<p><b>What can the story of this election's campaign financing tell us about how democracy is changing?</b></p>
<p> I think, taking the macro view, [it] is, to many people, very disturbing [and] horrifying that the campaign-finance laws that we took for granted for so many years were really that defenseless or easily knocked down. But that's the nature of the beast. We have short memories in this country. We don't remember, many of us, in our 20s and 30s, what it was like to have gone through the painful process of Watergate and the reform period after that, and the serious conversations about the perils of money to unduly influence the democratic process -- and ultimately democracy. All it took was Sandra Day O'Connor to leave the high court [and] be replaced with Samuel Alito, and the dominoes just started to fall, one by one. The anti-regulation and anti-disclosure forces are just getting warmed up. Ultimately, they've made clear that they want to remove the principal tenant of the Watergate reforms, which is limits of contributions and disclosure, which is the whole reason the federal election commission was established. That, I think, is something that the American people would certainly sit up and take notice with. But the question is whether they'll do it in time.</p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:20:54 +0000148966 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaUnequal Politicshttps://prospect.org/article/unequal-politics-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><i>With the distribution of income between the rich and the poor less equitable than at any time in recent memory, a slew of new books has come forth attempting to explain the phenomenon as not just an accident but the result of decades of policy-making. </i> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer-Turned/dp/1416588698/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1">Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer -- And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class</a>,<i> the new book from Jacob S. Hacker, an economist from Yale University, and Paul Pierson, a political scientist from the University of California, Berkeley, brings out the charts and combs the data in a swiftly written political history that shows why we're where we are and what crippled our government's ability to deal with it. </i></p>
<p>TAP <i><i>caught up with Hacker and Pierson to talk about their income-disparity analysis, criticisms from around the blogosphere, and the kind of politics needed if someone's going to start standing up for the middle-class. </i></i> </p>
<p><b>So the rich are <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-25-10inc-f1.jpg">getting</a> really rich now. How did that help put us in the economic situation in which we find ourselves?</b> </p>
<p><b>PP:</b> The focus of this book is on [the] long-term economic crisis rather than the immediate economic crisis that we're facing, which we see as a symptom of a broader problem -- the dramatic shift in the way the economy seems to be geared towards the concerns of those at the very top. So, for example, some authors deal with how inequality itself yields a financial bubble, and we focus on the politics of financial deregulation and how that played into the current crisis. </p>
<p>The main focus of the book is on this longer-term imbalance in the economy and the politics of how that was constructed. </p>
<p><b>Matt Yglesias <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/winner-take-all-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29">criticized</a> the book, saying that there may not be as strong a link between stagnating middle-class wages and inequality as you would have us believe. Your thoughts?</b> </p>
<p><b>JH:</b> I think it's wrong to think that the stagnation of middle incomes is separate from rising inequality. From a simple mathematical perspective, the fact that <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f2.jpg">over the 1979 to 2007 period almost 40 percent of after-tax income benefit gains</a> have gone to the richest 1 percent of Americans can't but have an impact on the rest of society, as we show in the book. Essentially, no one below the top 90 percent has experienced household income gains commensurate with the average growth of household income over this period, and a lot of other scholars have shown that productivity gains have been strong but that they have not gone to the middle. </p>
<p>The real puzzle of our book is why over a generation in which we've seen the middle class fall further and further behind those at the very top -- with consequences not just for their incomes but for their economic security, for their chances of economic security, and for their financial wealth holdings -- why, over that period, we've seen the middle-class lose so much apparent political clout as well as apparent economic clout. And I think a key illustration is that the current debate over tax cuts that's taking place may end with neither the upper-income tax cuts nor the middle-class tax cuts getting passed before the elections because there's such a strong commitment on the part of Republicans and a handful of Democrats to pass big tax cuts for millionaires -- so much commitment that they're willing to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage. </p>
<p><b>Those reading this might jump to the conclusion that a quick fix is to simply let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire and be done with the problem. Is it that simple? </b> </p>
<p><b>PP:</b> Taxes is a big one, and people do not fully appreciate even now how much the distribution of taxes has changed in the United States and what a significant contribution that's made to the improving relative economic position of those at the top. But there's also what's happening to financial regulation, which has had a huge effect over the distribution of income, where you'd want to see important reforms, and also what's happened to executive pay and CEO compensation where there's just been an explosion of the benefits of economic growth going to those at the very top. </p>
<p>We think the most important contribution of the unions is they give some kind of expression to the concerns of ordinary Americans in all these policy areas. So some people who have discussed the book have said, "We don't think the decline in unions in itself makes that much difference for inequality." But that's because many of these critics don't focus on the political side of the story and how important it is that there be some counterweight, some countervailing power in Washington on all these public-policy issues that can push back on the growing tendency in Washington to focus on the growing concerns at the top. </p>
<p><b> In the mid 2000s, there was a lot of discussion on the left about whether focusing on identity politics displaced the left's energy toward class politics and whether that contributed to the rise in wealth inequality. What can we learn from your book to help create a politics focused on economic justice that doesn't neglect race and gender? </b></p>
<p><b>JH:</b> I think there's no question that the way in which the Democratic alliance has evolved over the last generation has involved a conflict between the post-materialist identity concerns of the New Left and the more traditional bread-and-butter, lunch-pail concerns of the old left. And I think there's very important work done by scholars to show that as middle-class professional voters have become more important in shaping the Democratic coalition -- in part because of their role as contributors -- that the party as a whole has shifted more strongly to these post-material concerns and neglected these more traditional economic concerns. But I agree that there's no inherent conflict between emphasizing economic inequality and disadvantage on the one hand and the special problems facing racial minorities and other groups on the other. </p>
<p>The challenge is to construct a compelling political narrative and organizational coalition around the broad concerns of the middle class, and so far that has proved to be a really difficult challenge for Democrats to realize. </p>
<p><b><b>The main criticism of your book in the blogosphere seems to be criticism levied at the data you rely on, less than on your analysis of the data. What do you say to them?</b> </b></p>
<p><b>JH:</b> The main source of data we use to look at the change in the distribution of income since the late 1970s is the CBO's effective federal tax rates dataset. It's based on a combination of Census Bureau statistics and income-tax data to which the CBO has unique access, and it shows a very sharp skew towards the very top as well. </p>
<p>So at this point, I think these debates about the share of income going to the top tenth of 1 percent has tripled or quadrupled are really beside the basic point. There's been an irrefutable dramatic increase in inequality since the 1970s. That increase is driven by the increase in the concentration at the very top. All the data suggest that. And that increase is sustained. It's not just a blip that occurs in the wake of the 1986 Tax Reform Act or in a few years in the 1990s. </p>
<p>Using the CBO data, more than 50 percent of all of the after-tax, after-benefit household income gains during the expansion of the 2000s went to the richest 1 percent of the population. That transformation is irrefutable, and it has enormous consequences to American society, and what we're trying to show in this book is it's not an inevitable response to globalization or technological change or other broad economic shifts but directly a result of what government has done and not done in response to economic and social changes. And the central role of government in this transformation means that there is scope for changing it, and that if we recognize that politics and policy play a central role, then we can work to change politics and policy to create a more just and fair society. </p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:48:16 +0000148906 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaLightning Round: The Senate Is Not Full of Lady Gaga Fans.https://prospect.org/article/lightning-round-senate-not-full-lady-gaga-fans
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><ul><li>In a dismaying reminder of the poor state of government, Senate Democrats came up short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed on a defense spending bill that included an amendment repealing DADT. <strong>Greg Sargent</strong> <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/gop_obstructionism_works_part.html">says</a> GOP obstructionism works as a tactic, exposing Dems to the charge that they're not trying hard enough, possibly hurting them in the midterms. For now, the last chance to repeal DADT this year will come in the lame duck session after the Department of Defense publishes a report on the policy.</li>
<li>We now know the limits of going rogue. Alaska Senator <b>Lisa Murkoswki</b> and Florida Governor <b>Charlie Crist</b> have provoked the ire of the Republican base by <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42462.html">refusing</a> to stand down after suffering defeats in GOP primaries and instead campaign as write-in candidates or independents. <b>Sarah Palin</b>, seeming none too impressed, said that “The time for primary debate is over. It’s time for unity now.” And Republicans <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42493.html">are floating</a> the idea of stripping Murkowski of her committee slots. </li>
<li>Time <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/welcome-to-the-recovery/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader">to make</a> our own demands, it seems. After much discussion the last few weeks over what the Fed would do to stimulate economic growth, its governing committee issued a statement today saying it will not take steps to pump more money into the economy. But it did <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/09/fed_elect_not_to_take_new_step.html">hint</a> that future action is a possibility. </li>
<li>Remainders: Disturbing <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/is-wisconsin-still-feingold-country-dem-sen-trails-heading-into-november.php?ref=fpb">news</a> for Sen. <b>Russ Feingold's</b> reelection chances in Wisconsin; Why <b>Jon Stewart</b> and <b>Stephen Colbert's</b> rallies <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2267987/">aren't</a> just fun and games; Do some new statistics about interracial marriage <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steele-interracial-20100921,0,5731586.story">point</a> the way past identity politics?; This year <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/The_Big_Dog_that_didnt_bark.html?showall">is</a> officially the deadliest yet for troops in Afghanistan.</li>
</ul><div>-- <i>Sam Petulla</i></div>
<ul></ul></div></div></div>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:52:26 +0000204439 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaLightning Round: Tax Pro-Cons.https://prospect.org/article/lightning-round-tax-pro-cons
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><ul><li><b>Obama</b> announced his tax-cut plan today, but some Blue Dog Democrats continue to oppose it. In a conversation with <i>The Washington Post</i>’s <b>Greg Sargent</b>, <b>Jim Matheson</b> (D-Utah), explains that even though national polls show support for letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, that’s not necessarily true for his district. “In the midst of a recovery from a deep recession, I don't think that plays well in a lot of districts," he says. Dems now must <a href="http://blog.prospect.org/mt-static/html/%E2%80%9Dhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/a_blue_dog_dem_explains_why_he.html?wprss=plum-line%E2%80%9D">decide</a> which of their candidates to bolster -- and which not to.</li>
<p></p>
<li>Delware native and newly minted <i>Slate</i> blogger <b>Dave Weigel</b> <a href="http://blog.prospect.org/mt-static/html/%E2%80%9Dhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/09/14/requiem-for-mike-castle.aspx%E2%80%9D">mourns Mike Castle’s crushing upset</a> for the <span class="caps">GOP </span>nomination. Writing about the conservative commentariat's response, he balks: “These conservatives are not from Delaware.” He goes on to break down Delaware’s demographics and explain why Castle’s political career is not done yet -- at least not in Delware.</li>
<p></p>
<li>In a strange twist of fate, the current populist resurgence on the right is starting to erode Republican Party unity from within. After <b>Karl</b> <b>Rove</b> blasted Republican primary winner -- and heavy Tea Party favorite -- <b>Christine O’Donnell</b> for saying “nutty things,” <b>Sarah Palin</b> stepped up to her defense, calling Rove “in the machine,” and telling him to “Buck up!” It’s unclear how these new rifts will play politically come January, much less November, but frequent Rove commentator <b>Joshua Greene</b> <a href="http://blog.prospect.org/mt-static/html/%E2%80%9Dhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/in-defense-of-karl-rove/63031/%E2%80%9D">thinks Rove was right to speak up</a>. “Any litmus test that leaves Rove outside the boundaries of what constitutes an acceptable Republican is a ridiculous one,” he says. </li>
<p></p>
<li>
Remainders: D.C. Mayor<b> Adrian Fenty</b>'s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR2010091500834.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&amp;sub=AR">mistakes</a>; journalists <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/brian_wilson_shown_the_door_at_fox_news__173646.asp?c=rss">flee</a> Fox News; blacks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/business/15leonhardt.html?_r=2&amp;hp">beat out</a> whites on happiness; and <b>Andrew Sullivan</b> <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/the-war-on-marty.html">steps up to defend</a> <i>TNR</i>'s <strong>Marty Peretz</strong>. </li>
</ul><p><em>-- Sam Petulla</em></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:25:12 +0000204386 at https://prospect.orgSam PetullaAll Tax Cuts Are Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.https://prospect.org/article/all-tax-cuts-are-tax-cuts-wealthy
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>On Sunday, Republican Majority Leader <b>John Boehner</b> <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_091210.pdf?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea">was asked</a> [PDF] whether he would only support locking in middle-income tax cuts if Congress also made tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. "I want to do something for all Americans who pay taxes," he replied. The good news is, he can! As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities <a href="http://www.offthechartsblog.org/extending-%E2%80%9Cmiddle-class%E2%80%9D-tax-cuts-would-help-wealthy-even-more/">reported</a> a month ago today, the wealthy will <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/middle-class-tax-cuts/">benefit far more</a> from the "middle class" tax cuts than the middle class itself. </p>
<p>This point seems lost upon both Republican politicians and the media, who have sometimes presented the current debate as a strict choice between a set of "middle class" cuts and a set of "wealthy" cuts, with no middle ground. It's simply not accurate to say that thanks to our progressive taxation system, cuts for lower brackets also benefit higher-earners. Democrats, for their part, would do well to start mentioning that their plan helps everyone, with some extra emphasis on the middle class and small businesses during a recession. Regardless, it's not even accurate to say that wealthy people making between $250,000 and $500,000 will receive a huge boost from Republicans' proposal to make high-income tax cuts permanent; they'll pick up <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.html?referrer=emaillink">an average of 400 bucks</a>, about a measly one-one-thousandth of their income. </p>
<p>As Boehner himself admitted yesterday, only 3 percent of small business will be affected by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Of those, the vast majority fit into the 250k-500k bracket, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/117855-the-big-question-would-nixing-the-bush-tax-breaks-on-the-rich-hurt-the-us">according to</a> <strong>Dean Baker</strong>. Simply put: The idea that repealing the extra upper-class tax cut will have a dramatic impact on small business' hiring doesn't add up -- unless you know someone looking for a $400 annual salary.</p>
<p><i>-- Sam Petulla</i> </p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:36:06 +0000204356 at https://prospect.orgSam Petulla